zlacker

[return to "Reid Hoffman on the relationship between employers and employees"]
1. patmcc+K4[view] [source] 2015-05-22 21:27:09
>>jrs235+(OP)
Loyalty is such a ridiculous thing for most companies to expect. It needs to be earned, and it's not even that complicated. Here's how you get loyal employees:

1. After some probation period, fire only as a last resort or for really terrible behaviour. Have a plan to correct behavior in all other cases.

2. No layoffs unless the firm's very existence is threatened. It's a tough year? Too bad, that's part of the risk involved in being the owner.

3. Keep pay up to market/replacement rates. If someone is 20% more valuable with his new knowledge, pay him 20% more. 4. Have good benefits/vacation policies.

5. Make sure there's lots of interesting and challenging work to do. Allow people to switch roles/teams on a regular basis if they're interested.

6. Hire good people.

That's a company I'd be loyal to, and I think a lot of others would be too. Sure, you'd get people who would leave for their own thing, or a dream job, or because their husband/wife got a job 2000 miles away, but I don't think you'd see people jump ship nearly as often.

The other stupid thing is companies trot out how much it costs to hire a new person, but never want to invest in just retaining their employees.

◧◩
2. kohanz+sb[view] [source] 2015-05-22 23:31:33
>>patmcc+K4
1. After some probation period, fire only as a last resort or for really terrible behaviour. Have a plan to correct behavior in all other cases.

This is a great way to earn loyalty from the person not being fired and at the same time alienate multiple other employees who may have to work with someone who just might be a bad fit or incompetent. I've seen the situation happen too many times where a company's reluctance to let one person go without a long, dragged-out process of formal correctional measures caused several other, much more valuable team members, to leave instead.

◧◩◪
3. dragon+Jb[view] [source] 2015-05-22 23:37:13
>>kohanz+sb
> This is a great way to earn loyalty from the person not being fired and a way to alienate multiple other people who may have to work with that person who may just be a bad fit or incompetent.

Improving "behavior" (I would say "fit" -- the problem can often be on the company's end as well as the employees, and if you want to take the family analogy even semi-seriously, the employer needs to be able to be introspective enough to recognize this) needs to be taken just as seriously as "fire only as a last resort" in these cases; and if you don't have a credible plan to improve fit, you are at the last resort.

(Lots of places that give lip service to an ideal like this, especially places that are still afflicted by heavy bureaucracy, take it the wrong way, and it amounts to "never impose negative consequence and just try to sweep any performance problems under the rug as long as possible"; that's at least as bad as "fire at the first sign of trouble, and never try to understand what went wrong and how it could be improved".)

[go to top]